About this Show

The Rachel Maddow Show

News/Business. (2013)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Virtual Ch. 787 (MSNBC HD)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1920

PIXEL HEIGHT
1080

TOPIC FREQUENCY

New York 29, U.s. 18, France 14, Us 11, Syria 9, Sandy 7, United States 7, Wisconsin 6, Pennsylvania 6, John Boehner 6, Washington 5, Mali 5, Iraq 4, Dennis Ross 4, Newtown 4, Murkowski 3, Ron Paul 3, Rick Santorum 3, Obama 3, Florida 3,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  MSNBC    The Rachel Maddow Show    News/Business.  (2013)  

    January 16, 2013
    1:00 - 2:00am PST  

1:00am
other cracks like this. >> well, ten states are currently saying no to medicaid expansion. why do you think these governors are blocking this? does it lack the political component of the three states that you mentioned? and i think you're spot-on on that. >> well, you know, you've got texas and you've got florida. so you do have some big, diverse states that have -- not the same demographics, but comparable demographics. >> slowly but surely they come around to what the people want, despite all the political rhetoric. isn't that interesting? the good news is just how many
1:01am
people it's going to help in these states. and that's really what this is all about. >> exactly. >> and the more people that get covered, the better outcomes we're going to have, and that's what is going to bring the cost down over time. joan walsh. >> for everybody. >> glad to have you with us tonight. thank you. that is "the ed show." i'm ed schultz. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening. >> good evening. tremendous news for you and wendy. i knew you were glowing today for some reason. that's awesome. >> i want to tell you, she is one tough girl. >> and you have been a tough guy along with her all this time. it's been amazing to see you standing by her the way you have. and it's great news. congratulations. >> thank you, rachel. i appreciate that. >> and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. breaking news this hour in washington. the house has finally passed its bill to pay for relief efforts for hurricane sandy. it has just happened tonight. the storm hit on october 29th. it caused 140 deaths. it caused billions of dollars of damages in the densely populated
1:02am
regions of new york city and new jersey and connecticut where it hit most directly. although the u.s. senate acted last month on sandy relief, it has taken john boehner's republican-controlled house 78 days since the storm to pass this bill responding to the storm. in the end, on the republican side, it ended up being a grudging vote for sandy relief. republicans voted against sandy relief by a 3-1 margin. the bill was only able to pass because a minority of republicans joined with democrats to get it done in the house. even though the senate already passed its version of hurricane sandy relief last year, last month, the senate bill has to be redone because it took the house so long to get their side of it done. the senate is expected to get their side done again shortly. and then the president says he will sign the measure into law. and tonight, in further breaking news, as slow as house republicans were to act in response to hurricane sandy, tonight's other major news is
1:03am
about how fast new york state was able to move to respond to a different kind of disaster. tonight one month and one day after the mass shooting at sandy hook elementary school in newtown, connecticut, a town that is only about nine miles from the new york-connecticut border, tonight the state of new york has become the first state in the country since that tragedy to reform its gun laws. and it reformed its gun laws dramatically. as of tonight, as of tonight, new york has just enacted the toughest set of gun laws in the country. the state senate, which is run by a republican-dominated coalition passed the measure last night by a vote of 43-18. that was last night. then it was this afternoon the heavily democratic assembly voting. the margin in the assembly was 144-43. and then tonight, less than an hour after it won final passage in the legislature, governor andrew cuomo signed it, signed it into law. parts of it take effect immediately. new york's new law bans any gun magazines that can hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. seven.
1:04am
it expands an existing state assault weapons ban to ban guns that are semiautomatic and have detachable magazines and that have one what they call military style feature such as a flash suppresser or a bayonet mount. it used to be you needed two of those features in addition to being a semiautomatic weapon. now you just need one of the features. also, as of now, you can no longer have guns -- excuse me, as of now you can no longer have guns that meet that description i just gave in new york state. but if you already own a weapon like that in new york state, you can keep it. you're grandfathered in. but you will have to register that weapon with the state that is the part that is new. the new law requires a background check to buy a firearm, which you need now if you buy at a store. but it also closes the loophole. so you will need a background check now if you buy your gun at a private sale. it closes the gun show loophole, in other words. you will also now need a
1:05am
background check to buy ammunition. and mental health professionals will be required to report to the state patients who they consider to be a threat to themselves or others. law enforcement would then be allowed to confiscate firearms owned by such a patient. and if you are a gunowner, you are responsible for keeping your weapons inaccessible to others if you live with someone who legally should not have access to weapons in new york state. that's the package. this is a big deal. and they did it a month and a day after sandy hook. they did it on day two of the legislative session in albany. >> this is a complex, multifaceted problem. and this is a comprehensive bill that addresses the full panorama and spectrum of issues that come up. i'm proud to be a new yorker because new york is doing something, because we are fighting back, because yes, we've had tragedies and yes we've had too many innocent people lose their life. and yes it's unfortunate that it
1:06am
took those tragedies to get us to this point. but let's at least learn from what has happened. common sense can win. and good people can win. and you can actually get government to work and get good things to happen. you can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense. and you can make this state a safer state. >> the national rifle association responded late today to new york's actions. they put out a statement saying naturally that they are outraged by what new york has done. it should also be noted that the nra is frequently outraged. but other states are looking to join new york. maryland governor martin o'malley, colorado governor john hickenlooper, connecticut governor dan malloy, illinois governor jack markell have all announced in the past few days announced ambitious legislative proposals on gun reform in their own states. and of course federally, tomorrow ahead of schedule,
1:07am
president obama is set to unveil his own set of proposals in response to the newtown school shooting. the white house releasing this picture today of vice president biden, presenting his findings to the president and other cabinet members in a gun policy meeting. >> i can tell you that tomorrow the president and vice president will hold an event here at the white house to unveil a package of concrete proposals to reduce gun violence and prevent future tragedies like the one in newtown, connecticut. they will be joined by children from around the country who wrote the president letters in the wake of that tragedy, expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety along with their parents that event will be at approximately 11:45 a.m. i will not get ahead of the president in terms of what his package of proposals will include. i will simply note that the president has made clear he intends to take a comprehensive approach.
1:08am
he has also made clear that there are specific legislative actions that he will continue to call on congress to take. including the assault weapons ban. including a measure to ban high capacity magazine clips, including an effort to close the very big loopholes in the background check system in our country. but i will beyond that leave to it the president to announce what actions he proposes tomorrow. >> joining us now is shelton silver. he is the speaker of the new york state assembly which passed new york state's sweeping new gun reforms this afternoon. mr. speaker, thanks very much for making time for us today. i know it's been a very busy day. >> thank you, rachel. thank you for having me. >> this has happened quickly. this is the second day of the legislative session. it's a month and a day after the sandy hook shooting. we'll all trying to understand exactly what was just passed in new york.
1:09am
i feel like i should first ask you if my summary of the new law was basically accurate. is that basically what you passed today? >> your summary was fantastic. absolutely on point. we added other things like increasing certain penalties such as straw sales, which has been a problem in new york where people go, get guns out of state, come back and in a sense, purchase it for others who don't clear background checks. we have made those clearly illegal here in new york. the registration of any existing assault weapon is very, very important. and the outright ban of the multiple more than seven and you cannot have more than seven in any clip. these are the key elements that are designed basically to protect people, to protect children, to protect police and fire.
1:10am
there is no reason that i see that we should have guns that are designed to kill the most number of people in the fastest time period possible. and let's face it. that's what assault weapons are. it's not for hunting. it's not for target shooting. it is for that and that alone. >> i understand that one of the provisions included in this package of reforms today would have increased the criminal penalties for anybody who shoots a first responder. it's being called the webster provision, because the webster, new york, situation around the turn of the year, around christmas time when firefighters were ambushed and shot and killed by somebody who laid in wait for them. how much of what happened today was able to be achieved in albany because of recent tragic
1:11am
incidents like those and like sandy hook? how much of this never would have been possible before? >> well, it's unfortunate that these were the impetus. newtown, our webster in new york where somebody set a fire in order to attract fire personnel and then open fire on those fire personnel. that's what happened in webster. and it's almost tragic that we needed that in order to bring the impetus for this kind of legislation. we needed that. we have been passing -- i say the new york state assembly. the democratic-controlled house has been passing an assault weapons legislation like this on previous occasions, many previous occasions. but it took the leadership of governor cuomo and those horrendous acts that happened in newtown and in webster that actually brought the impetus for this to take place. and this is really the first
1:12am
bill of the legislative session that passed right on the opening. >> speaker of the new york state assembly, sheldon silver. i know this was a long-term goal of yours, sir, and a profound legislative achievement, new york state. thank you for your time tonight, sir. it's nice to have you here. >> a pleasure. >> thank you. let's turn to e.j. dionne of the "washington post" and senior fellow at brookings. it's nice to have you here too. >> good to be with you. >> we just heard from sheldon silver in new york. obviously new york is not exactly like the rest of the country politically or in any other way. interesting, though. new york does have a republican-controlled senate. it's a republican coalition that controls the senate. the speaker there saying we were able to do this in the assembly before, but we were never able to get it all the way through in
1:13am
law before governor cuomo made it a priority, and before these tragedies. how significant do you think this is what new york did today? >> i actually think it's very significant. of course new york is not typical of the whole country. of course, there is no state in our whole union that is typical of the whole country. but there are a lot of republicans in the house of representatives which are seen as the roadblock who are like the republicans in the state senate, a few in the state assembly who voted for this bill. if you look at the numbers now, there are 12 republicans from new york and new jersey, 13 from pennsylvania, 20 from the west coast, 44 from the midwest. within that group of 89 are the votes that you're going to need to pass assault weapons ban, bans on big magazines, tightening up the background checks. and i think that's very possible. and i think the sandy vote tonight really tells us something. john boehner allowed this to pass, even though most republicans voted against it. 49 republicans voted for it. i bet you in those 49 are the votes you're going to need for
1:14am
meaningful gun control. and so a lot will be up to john boehner. will he let republicans who are like the republicans in new york who voted for this vote the views of their constituents or will he impose the views of come up for a vote? >> what do you think the white house's assessment is of that what you just laid out? what do you expect from president obama tomorrow in terms of a balance between things he can do himself and things he would need congress to do? >> well, he is going to do as much as he can to enforce existing law and do things through executive orders. no, the gun owners don't have to fear he is not going to take guns away through executive orders. it's that fear, that paranoia being spread by the nra and others. but he is going to take executive action. but i think he is going to
1:15am
propose a very robust plan from everything i hear, including an assault weapons ban. that seems to be the measure that has the most difficulty. one of the things i think they're going to propose, by the way, is to make it a lot easier to collect data on gun violence, on people who die in violence. the nra has blocked even the collection of data. so we can't know what is going on. so we can't come up with the right solutions. i hope that is part of his package, and i think it will be. >> e.j. dionne of the "washington post" and the brookings institution. thank you. it's always great to see you. >> it's great to see you. thank you. >> i will say this about blue states in the country. we have this major landmark action tonight from new york state, a blue state acting on its own terms. we're anticipating this announcement tomorrow from the democratic president, but federal measures where he has a divided congress between the two different parties.
1:16am
here is the interesting thing about blue states and the rest of the country. new york is a big state with a lot of gun owners. new york is not just new york city. new york has a huge rural area, right, with a lot of gun owners and gun rights folks, and a lot of republican representatives from those areas voted for gun law reform today. it is underappreciated how much blue states can pilot new gun control measures for the country, if only so that country, if only so that gun owners in those blue states can then tell the country that those gun control measures have not resulted in somebody coming in in a black helicopter and confiscating all their guns. people dismiss blue states as being able to do stuff that the rest of the country can't do. but blue states can move the ball forward. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ i am pink and i am a covergirl.
1:17am
♪ overmany discounts to thine customers! [old english accent] safe driver, multi-car, paid in full -- a most fulsome bounty indeed, lord jamie. thou cometh and we thy saveth! what are you doing? we doth offer so many discounts, we have some to spare. oh, you have any of those homeowners discounts? here we go. thank you. he took my shield, my lady. these are troubling times in the kingdom. more discounts than we knoweth what to do with. now that's progressive.
1:18am
how is the united states constitution like a banana peel? well, a certain group of people who are frequently unfunny keep slipping on it. that story is next.
1:19am
1:20am
this was the scene earlier today on the house floor. watch. >> we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity to ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america. >> now, he did not write that himself. yes, it was constitution day on the floor of the house of representatives. read the constitution day. remember two years ago when republicans took over the house, john boehner became speaker for the first time, they decided to make a big show out of reading the constitution page by page on the floor of the house as one of their first acts?
1:21am
well, they apparently enjoyed that so much a couple of years ago when they did it the first time that they decided to bring it back. so today for more than an hour, members of the house took turns reading a section of the constitution, again. and honestly, the second time around, the whole thing sort of lost a little bit of steam compared with last time. all told, just 74 members of the house turned up today to read parts of the constitution. now organizers had said they expected 120 members to show up. so they divided the constitution into 120 sections. when not that many people showed up, they ended up having to stretch. they had to give the congressmen and women who did show up two or three sections apiece to read all at once. the squeal is never as good as the original, right? fortunately for house republicans, though, it was not as flat-out embarrassing for them as a group this time the way it was when they did it the last time a couple of years ago. remember, a couple of years ago when they did it, the first time they did not just skip parts of the constitution they didn't like, they accidentally skipped some parts of the constitution
1:22am
that they liked just fine, but just had the misfortune of getting lost when pages in their binder got stuck together. this time i think the group experience was a little less humiliating. it was more sad and sparsely attended. this year they saved the real embarrassment for just one guy, for just republican congressman dennis ross of florida. he drew the short straw today. he was the guy who showed up i think totally randomly, but just in time to be handed section 4 of the 14th amendment of the constitution to read out loud. that's what he got assigned. if that specific clause is not ringing a bell, that's the part of the constitution that goes like this -- >> section 4. the validity of the public debt of the united states authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned. >> ooh. the validity of the public debt of the united states shall not be questioned. so says the constitution, section 4 of the 14th amendment.
1:23am
that's the part of the constitution that says explicitly that the u.s. government can't under any circumstances default on our debt. and that made it a very awkward section for republican congressman dennis ross to have to read out loud since he has been one of the house republicans who has been threatening to force the united states government to default on our debt, damn the constitution. lakeland's dennis ross among the gop freshmen to tell john boehner no. ross was among the freshman republicans who told john boehner that he would not be voting for the debt ceiling proposal. that was from the last time the house republicans threatened the country with defaulting on our debt back in 2011. dennis ross, you probably should have calibrated your place in line a little better. throw a democrat in there ahead of you when you realize that's what you're going to get. get there in time for the repeal prohibition amendment next time. that's more fun. if you have found yourself at home constitutionally -- forgive me, constitutionally incapable
1:24am
of getting excited over having another fight about the debt ceiling this year, if this isn't exciting because it just feels like groundhog day to you, oh my god, i've got reckless brinksmanship fatigue, it is true that it's hard to get excited over something we have done before. it is 2013 now. remember when it happened it was a total disaster. even if you just ignore the political consequences, if you just look at the economic impact, it was a self-imposed economic disaster caused by washington refusing to do something that it needs to do and that it has done dozens of times before. republicans just refused to do it. it was such a disaster, you would think that there would not be a reason to explain that this shouldn't happen again. but it's happening again in what looks like an exact repeat of 2011. except for one thing. there is one thing that is different so far this time around, and time will tell will this proves to be a harbinger of something bigger, or whether this is just a single outlying happy fact. but this year there is one
1:25am
republican member of congress who has broken ranks on the big stupid debt ceiling thing. in 2011, there was not a single republican in congress in the house or in the senate who broke ranks publicly and said actually, purposefully driving the american economy into a ditch to make a point that even we don't understand and that is against the constitution, that might not be a great idea. nobody broke ranks when the republicans did this in 2011. nobody on the republican side. but today on the republican side somebody did. today republican senator lisa murkowski of alaska broke ranks. she gave an interview to her hometown newspaper in alaska, she says she disagrees threatening the country with default. quote, murkowski is breaking rank, saying the country has a duty to assure it pays its bills. murkowski said not all of her colleagues in the senate will say it out loud, but she believes most agree that failing to raise the debt limit would harm perception of the country.
1:26am
quote, if you incur an obligation, you have a responsibility to pay for that, murkowski said. time is going the tell if lisa murkowski is the first republican to break ranks or if she is the only republican to break with republican leadership on this issue. but the fact that she has done it already makes this a better movie than it was in 2011. stay tuned.
1:27am
1:28am
1:29am
we've got richard engel here live tonight. very much looking forward to that. and to wrap the show tonight, we have a big story, a big politics story that, well, if you know anybody who works with the beltway media, can you please call them and tell them to watch the last story on the show tonight? when the united states was ♪
1:30am
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ i am pink and i am a covergirl. ♪
1:31am
1:32am
when the united states was openly mulling the prospect of going to war with iraq, people inside iraq who were enemies of saddam, people who wanted the u.s. to invade iraq and overthrow him found that the u.s. government, and in some cases the u.s. press were very interested in hearing all the horrible things they had to say about saddam. now, saddam was a horrible guy,
1:33am
so it wasn't hard to find horrible things to say about him. but the known record of his awful behavior toward his own people had previously not been enough to get the u.s. to invade iraq. but once the bush administration got bent on war, once it seemed like the u.s. was being led to war, and it just needed to be tipped a little bit further, all sorts of new horrible things about saddam hussein that hadn't been known before started to pop up in the press. a cia report that saddam had imported aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium to make nuclear weapons that exciting little piece of data, which proved to be out of context and not true. that's not what the tubes were for. that nevertheless ended up on the front page of the "new york times." it had been leaked to "the new york times" by people inside the bush administration who had access to raw bits of out of context intel like that.
1:34am
recognizing that that sort of thing sounded really scary, they plucked it out of context, didn't check it for accuracy, leaked it to "the new york times," and then cited the fact that it had been in "the new york times" as evidence that the scary claim was out there and should be added to the case for going to war. >> specifically, aluminum tubes, there is a story in "the new york times" this morning. this is -- and i want to attribute the times. i don't want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources. but it's now public that in fact he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of
1:35am
tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. >> yeah, that was bullpucky. leaked for the purpose of trying to get the u.s. to invade iraq. but that leak to "the new york times" and then citing the "new york times" as having published it, that was very effective at the time. part of the colin powell presentation to the u.n. around that same time, about why the u.s. was going to invade iraq was what he described as evidence of iraq's mobile biological weapons labs. that intel, which was publicized to try to get us to war with iraq came from an iraqi defector nicknamed curveball, a guy who later admitted he made up everything he told to german intelligence, specifically to try to get the west to go to war with iraq because he thought saddam was an enemy. the complicity and direct help of our own government in selling us that bullpucky that was not true in order to make it politically possible to go to war in iraq, that is the original sin of the george w. bush era in america. but it does not mean that they cooked up all that fake and misleading intelligence all by themselves. some of it came from enemies of saddam and iraqi exiles and expats who shoved it to the u.s., knowing it was false, but hoping we would nevertheless fall for it because they wanted us to invade. that recent history of the u.s. and how we get into wars these days looms large. it looks large particularly on days like this when we see bombshell headlines like this one. our friend josh rogin at foreign policy tonight reporting that someone inside the obama administration says that he or she has seen a cable that if the
1:36am
information in that cable is true would be a very scary thing. the headline, as you can see there, "chemical weapons used in syria." chemical weapons used. nobody is known to have used chemical weapons in 25 years. we know syria has them. but have they used them in their civil war? because that really would change everything. but look back at that headline again. the part before the part that would change everything is crucial. "secret state department cable says chemical weapons used in syria." and can we see this secret state department cable that says this incredibly inflammatory thing? no, of course not. it's secret. and it's an unnamed obama administration official that claims to have seen the cable. and it's an unknown case that this rubicon has been crossed, insisting that the u.s. must react, that syria is testing our resolve. that when the president said any use of chemical weapons would be a red line, well, then this incident means he must really not have meant it.
1:37am
it is, of course, possible that it is true, that syria has used chemical weapons. if it is true, it is both awful on its face, and it is something that the president and the secretary of state said would be treated as a red line, a serious response from the united states. in his report tonight, josh notes that it is activists and defectors from syria who are marketing this story that syria has crossed that red line. this reported secret document from u.s. state department officials in turkey josh says was also born of interviews with syrian activists and defectors, who of course very much want the largest military power on earth involved on their side of their war with their own government. the whole thing is both very worrying and almost sort of emotionally triggering for us as a country still traumatized by the last time people inside our own government stovepiped specific scary intelligence to the media in order to scare us into a war we wouldn't have otherwise within involved in. oh, and also incidentally, our ally france just invaded mali,
1:38am
and we're helping in some ways. times like we need help sorting out what is going on in the world. joining us is foreign chief correspondent richard engel. richard, thanks for being here. >> bullpucky? >> bullpucky. >> twice. i can see your teleprompter and you actually wrote bullpucky. i wasn't sure that was a real word. on a much more serious note. >> what do you make of this report from josh? it's very scary, and also for me reminds me of a lot of stuff i've heard before. >> i had heard this report from syrian rebels while i was inside syria, because at the time i was asking them did they think that the regime would use chemical weapons. they said of course the regime already has used chemical weapons, and they referred to an incident specifically in homs in december around christmas time, december 23rd. and i was listening to activists tell me about it. and it seemed not convincing, frankly. they said there had been some gas released in homs,
1:39am
potentially fired from tanks, maybe dropped from the air, and that it made people sick. i asked if anyone was killed. they said no. i said, well, maybe this is tear gas. maybe there was something else that got people sick. when buildings are dropping, there is asbestos in the air, there are a lot of things that seem suspicious. you hear claims like this all the time. when i was in gaza, for example, i've been there twice for wars, you hear gazans talk about the israelis firing chemical weapons on them. i think they usually mean white phosphorous, which is a different kind of weapon. i generally treat these claims with a great deal of suspicion. and in this case, i couldn't find any compelling evidence and didn't report it. now we see this claim coming out. >> cable. >> in a leaked cable. so what is new is the leaked cable. and what is new is that the united states is investigating it.
1:40am
good. and it deserves to be investigated. it's an inflammatory claim. and this leaked cable, that this cable has been leaked to the media. what they're talking about specifically according to experts who were listening to this testimony, and they were listening to some of the symptoms, because this gas wouldn't necessarily be lethal unto itself. it was causing nausea. it was causing hallucinations. it sounds like something called bz gas. and bz gas is not sarin or tabun. it is not a nerve agent. it's not in the same kind of scale. this is a not a red line event. >> the type of symptoms would indicate it is that type of weapon which is a chemical weapon, but not the worst kind of chemical weapon. >> not even close to the worst kind of chemical weapon. the worst kind that syria may or may not have, we pretty much know that they have sarin and tabun. they will kill you. if they're dropped on a vicious, they will cause mass casualties
1:41am
and dissipate. vx, also a nerve agent, also lethal. what is worse about that, if it's dropped on a village, it kills people and then stays there. >> persists. >> it persists. so people can't go in. this is a gas that makes people unconscious, disoriented, vomit, and according to opposition medical sources, the people who died, allegedly five, choked because they vomited and choked on their vomit. so it would be a different kind of scale if indeed. >> if indeed it happened. and we need to watch for further reports, including from the state department whether they confirm what is in this cable or how they have assessed it. on another level, france has invaded mali. >> socialist government, unilateral military action. who would have thought that. >> well, is the u.s. going to get involved? >> there will not be american boots on the ground. i can't imagine that.
1:42am
but the u.s. is involved. there are now about 800, 900 french troops on the ground, armored vehicles, 40 or so of them. and the u.s. is providing logistical systems and more -- intelligence, satellite images, aerial refueling, lift, which means aircraft -- air transfer of some equipment. so the u.s. is very pleased that france is doing this. i think to a degree surprised. even two weeks ago france said it wouldn't do this. and now france is going to have eventually about 2,500 troops on the ground and be involved in ground combat in mali. and there is some specific reasons france is doing this. france saw that extremists in the north, some of them linked to al qaeda, were marching toward bamako, the capital. they were heading south. and the government in bamako panicked, called france for assistance and france intervened. france also was worried that there is a very large community of people from mali, about 200,000 living in paris, living in france. and france was worried that
1:43am
these malian nationals would be influenced by the extremists back home and carry out attacks. frantz had intelligence an attack may have been in the active planning stages. >> france's reaction to what happened in mali and the u.s. reaction to what france did is fascinating at the outset. it's going to be more fascinating when we see the extent of how much the u.s. decides to be in support. will cow i don't mean back and talk to us more with a big map? >> bring the map. and will you say bullpucky? >> i will say bullpucky, but never accusingly at you. >> maybe. it depends on what i say. >> that's true. richard engel, nbc's chief foreign correspondent. all right. we'll be right back.
1:44am
1:45am
1:46am
1:47am
president obama today chose the license plates that are going to be on his limo when he driven to the capitol to be inaugurated on monday. they say taxation without representation. at the request of the d.c. council, president obama chose these tags. he did not need to, but he is doing it. d.c. of course is taxed by
1:48am
congress, but has no vote in congress, which famously is not the way we're supposed to do things in this country. what, you want to argue with james otis? taxation without representation is tyranny, boston, 1765? the president getting those license plates on the giant limo that is going the carry him to his inauguration officially makes the inauguration better than it otherwise would have been. or maybe ever has been before. we'll see. ay be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal.
1:49am
intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪
1:50am
1:51am
iowa caucuses this year were a bit of a fiasco, right? on the night of the caucuses, they proclaimed that mitt romney had won, and 16 days later they said no, no, i was wrong, it was a tie between mitt romney and rick santorum. he said no no, it was not that he won, it was a tie, and rick santorum won. when it came to iowa allocating the delegates, iowa did not pick mitt romney or rick santorum. iowa picked ron paul. so the iowa caucuses were a mess, right? three different winners,
1:52am
depending on who you asked. the chairman resigned, then there was an ultimate big fight for control of the republican party. the ultimate result was that some ron paul folks became the chair and co-chair of the republican party. and while that may not mean much for iowa at this second, what will it mean in the next caucus, they are controlled by the insurgent movement, the ron paul caucus. and in 2016 is the rest of the republican party going to allow iowa to still go first? because iowa has defended their right in the nation as if going first were all ten of their first commandments. iowa is first with the caucuses, new hampshire, the primaries, and no matter how screwed up the states may be, it is kind of strange states on the presidential election process. they have done everything in their power to be first. everybody wants to be fought over in a presidential election, everybody wants to monopolize the candidates and the nation's attention.
1:53am
so we're iowa, the first in the caucus, you have to spend tons of time here, we're new hampshire, the first primary, you have to spend tons of time here, mitt romney, you have to move here, you, too, john huntsman, we want all your attention. every state wants to do everything they can for the presidential candidates' attention, they all want a battle ground, they all want to be fought over. or at least they used to want to be fought over. something weird happened since the last election. and it is really starting to happen.
1:54am
i think you should know about it. in wisconsin and michigan and ohio and pennsylvania and virginia and florida, there is now noise that these states, which were at pretty hard fought in the presidential election, these were all battleground states, they're all fighting to make themselves less important in the next election, all of them voted democratic for president in the end. and all controlled at the state level by the republican party. so they're red states that voted blue. and all of those states with that combination of factors you are seeing underground moves to stop those states from being battlegrounds, at least to stop them in ways that could help a democratic candidate in the presidency. we have been watching this, and now it seems as though it is falling into place, starting in pennsylvania early in 2012, and republicans who controlled the legislature there tried to change the way that state votes
1:55am
for president. so no one candidate could win the whole state. because they tried this in 2012, right before the election it was pretty much seen as a transparent attempt to rig the election in pennsylvania. for whoever the republican presidential candidate would be. and so it lost. but now after the election, with much less attention on any impending election, republicans in pennsylvania are trying again. also in wisconsin. republicans tried to advance this idea in 2007 before the 2008 election. it lost in wisconsin for the same reasons that it lost in pennsylvania in that it seemed like a transparent attempt to rig that state for the republican presidential nominee. but then after wisconsin went for barack obama in 2008 and then in 2012, now this has been brought back. and this time the member of the state legislature who unsuccessfully pushed for it last time, well, now, he is speaker of the assembly, the assembly is controlled by republican, the republicans, the state's governor, scott walker now is interested in this idea
1:56am
of changing the rules. since the election we've also seen republican legislators in republican-controlled legislatures float the idea of changing the state's vote for president rules. in ohio, you can see that the data on this one was november the 8th, right after the election. in virginia, you can see the date here, a month later, december 9th. in michigan, december 18th, this is a phenomenon which is scarcely getting covered by the beltway at all. but in the republican-controlled states that voted blue for president. what republicans are trying to do in these states is figure out if republicans have the control in the state government to change who that state votes for, for president. if they have control, wisconsin this last election would have cast its 200,000 more votes for obama rather than romney.
1:57am
and instead, wisconsin would have cast half a vote for romney and half a vote for obama. under this most aggressive plan that has been put forward on the republican side, president obama would have finished nationwide with 5 million more votes than mitt romney, but mitt romney could have still won the electoral college and the presidency. fair vote did the math on what the republicans are rigging in the states, and it kind of works like magic. if the republicans had passed laws regarding the votes, it would have converted barack obama's advantage of nearly 5 million popular votes and 126 electoral votes into a resounding electoral college defeat. republicans didn't make those changes in 2011 so it didn't happen this past election, but they are very quietly thinking about changing the rules in these states.
1:58am
now, and with republican control and nobody really paying attention, why wouldn't they make the changes? effectively what they would do is use the exact same gerrymandering, they would use the exact same maps that rigged the house for the republicans this year as their means of also rigging the next race for the presidency. the next race for the presidency, and the races after that too. it would be rigged from here on out until the democrats could figure out a way to unrig it by changing the rules in the states. because they could have to take back all the states, despite it being stacked against them. in republican-controlled states right now in the legislative sessions they could do it. there are signs that they are thinking of doing it. there have been signs, and now this week there is a really, really big sign. the chairman of the national republican party endorsing this strategy, in the way they make
1:59am
the changes in dealing with the vote. national journal is just about the only place reporting on this. the interesting thing, it is not just happening independently, spontaneously in individual-controlled republican states. they reported it was coordinated in washington quietly by senior level republicans, the former chair of the michigan republican party was said to have briefed the rnc chairman and the staff on how they were trying to make the change in the states. now the rnc chairman says he supports it happening in his state, and of course the states will have to make the decision on their own. the vehicle by which the republicans say they engineered the maps that let them keep the house this year, even though the country voted against them for house seats, that vehicle is called "red map." they released the triumphant situation, where they voted for democrats instead.